Originally posted by dusty_hog
Bear with me here, but I am going to compare the head coach to the President. Both are in charge, but they both have people below them; a cabinet for the President, and an OC, DC, STC, etc. for the coach. The other coaches may make decisions, but when it all comes down to it, the guy in charge makes the final decision about what goes on in his country or team. And right now, due to their poor judgment, it looks like both Wanny and Bush are on the path to unemployment in 2004.

Why is Wanny so bad? How can you give a guy this much talent and have the team miss the playoffs?

So you are saying that the economy is totally Bush's fault, when the downturn began in the late '90's under your hero Slick Willie. And the economy is our #1 issue, not Iraq. You lose all credibilty when you blame all of our country's problems on the current President. Now is he perfect, absolutely not, but he is better than the lily livered, hustler (and his side kick, AG), that came before him. Our problems lie in Congress, and the fat a$$e$ who sit there, both Rep and Dem.

Mr.Murder

08-28-2003, 07:26 PM

Bush was Gov. of the state ENRON was from, Bush PROMISED accountability and did nothing, 9-11 made people forget about it.
An boxfull of uncounted ballots in Dade county have Wanny's name for president on them. Great comparison.

The entire recession DID begin in Clinton's final two years, coinciding conveniently with a Republican congress made possible thanks to a blow job scandal.

Barbarian

08-28-2003, 08:04 PM

You know, it's funny how people look at Bush and say...
"He's not responsable, the problems were there before he came into office, and he doesn't controll congress, so he can't be blamed."

Then they look at Governer Davis and say...
"well, regardless of the fact that things were screwed up before he took office he should have been able to fix things regardless of the national economy tanking, and he should have had the leadership to make congress do what he wanted."

Then they look at President Bush and say...
"Well, sure he came into office with a budget surplus and now has the largest deficit in the history of the United States, but he had 9/11 and the war on terrorism to deal with."

But then they look at Governor Davis and say...
"Who cares if homeland security costs have been mostly pushed off onto the states and California had the biggest hit of all the states by the economic recession, Davis took a state with a budget deficit to begin with and now has a larger deficit, he should have been able to deal with it."

Gotta love the right wingers... Now I'm not condemming Bush, nor am I praising Davis (or vice versa, both have done a mediocre job at best IMHO). All I am asking for is a little consistency from both the left and the right.

Barbarian

08-28-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by DallasDolfan
Our problems lie in Congress, and the fat a$$e$ who sit there, both Rep and Dem.

While I disagree with the rest of the post for the most part, this part I can agree with 100%
:up: :patriot:

baccarat

08-28-2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Barbarian

Then they look at Governer Davis and say...
&quot;well, regardless of the fact that things were screwed up before he took office he should have been able to fix things regardless of the national economy tanking, and he should have had the leadership to make congress do what he wanted.&quot;

Didn't CA have a 10 billion dollar surplus, then it fell into red ink and he lied about it in his campaigns? He was in office based off of provable lies but the fact he has a 22% approval rating is unbelievable. Nixon's approval ratings never sunk below 30%, and come to think about it, David Dukes had a better rating among blacks than Davis does among Californians. Anyone w/ a 22% approval rating sends a red flag up that they're most likely not doing their job. This is a liberal in a liberal state, too. Then again, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Barbarian

08-29-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by booyeah_

Didn't CA have a 10 billion dollar surplus,

Nope.

then it fell into red ink and he lied about it in his campaigns?

Nope, he didn't lie about it in the cmpaigns, all that information that was put out in the campaigns was open for public perusal and can be easily seen. The numbers he gave were the numbers he was given and the ones that were on the books.

He was in office based off of provable lies

Sorry, but thats not the truth, unfortunately the media has repeated this lie so often that it is being taken as a fact when in fact, it's just not true.

Not dogging ya here man, It's easy to fall into the trap of hearing a lie over and over again and then believing it after a while.

but the fact he has a 22% approval rating is unbelievable.

Goes to show just how effective the right is with their slander campaign and how impotent the Democrats are at defending themselves. The Dems arent even putting up a fight, I allmost wish they would lose to spark some life into the party, because when either party gets too much power bad things tend to happen and the pendulum is swinging to the right pretty hard right now.

Nixon's approval ratings never sunk below 30%, and come to think about it, David Dukes had a better rating among blacks than Davis does among Californians. Anyone w/ a 22% approval rating sends a red flag up that they're most likely not doing their job.

But only 40% of recall supporters believe that recalling him will do any good for the economy (KPIX news report). People don't like him because it's the "in" thing and the GOP has done a masterfull job of character assassination. Not because he has actually done anything "bad" in office that wouldent have befallen anybody else that is currently running.

This is a liberal in a liberal state, too. Then again, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Nope, sorry, but California is far from a liberal state, this is the exact same state that gave the world Governor Ronald Regan, and Governor Pete Wilson, in fact since 1899 Democrats have only been elected to the Governors seat for a combined total of 23 years.

That means 23 years of Democrats in the top spot and 81 years of Republicans. The California/Liberal myth is just that, a myth. It just happens that our leftist nutcases are louder than most states leftist nutcases.

Oh, and here is an eyeopener about the california budget woes in the year prior to Davis taking office, considering what Wilson left the state with, it's allmost a miricle that things werent even worse than they had become.
PORK-FILLED STATE BUDGET A 'TITANIC' FOR TAXPAYERS (http://www.ca.lp.org/rel/19980828-budget.html)

baccarat

08-30-2003, 01:00 AM

Slander? Well, I do not support mud slinging campaigns and what-have-you but Gray Davis is the one who has compared opponents to Leona Helmsley and brought up trivial nonsense like the fact Arnold's father was a Nazi. You probably know more than me, so have Davis' opponents used personal attacks?

I don't see this CA being "far from liberal". The governorship always doesn't reflect the general political thought. Look at New York, a very liberal state, elected George Pataki. Do you think any state is, generally, liberal minded?

Barbarian

08-30-2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by booyeah_
Slander? Well, I do not support mud slinging campaigns and what-have-you but Gray Davis is the one who has compared opponents to Leona Helmsley and brought up trivial nonsense like the fact Arnold's father was a Nazi. You probably know more than me, so have Davis' opponents used personal attacks?

I don't see this CA being &quot;far from liberal&quot;. The governorship always doesn't reflect the general political thought. Look at New York, a very liberal state, elected George Pataki. Do you think any state is, generally, liberal minded?

Oh yeah, the attacks have gone both ways, and like I have pointed out, Davis has done no more than a mediocre job, but the mud has been slung back and forth and the whole thing is turning Californias system into a laughingstock. (and an unfunny one at that :( )
For the most part Davis' attacks have been in retaliation, and thats no defense for his sinking down to other peoples level, but people should realise that It's both sides getting dirty here. Davis has been a scapegoat for bigger problems and an innefective, split, and unwilling to work together legislature that has held the state hostage.
Davis hasn't helped matters much, but the real problem is the state legislature. Nobody could do an effective job in the Governers office with this legislature. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing them all thrown out for moderates in the next election (hey, a guy can hope eh?)

Actually, I would say that most of the New England states are definately more liberal minded than California. If you look at the political lanscape, last time I saw California had approximately 40% Democrats, 35% Republicans, 7% Libertarian, 18% Other Parties. (those numbers my have changed over the past few years however, but considering the swing to the right in the nation, I would guess that the current statistics are even more even)

oh, and for the record, I'm one of those 18%. I used to be a democrat, but the party has become a pathetic shell of itself, and I have several issues with the GOP, so I'm registered as an indipendant now.

Miamian

09-01-2003, 12:36 PM

Funny how I seem to remember that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and it didnÂ´t take too long to p!$$ it away. Now, we donÂ´t believe that everyone getting those refunds had anything to do with it?

CirclingWagons

09-01-2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by booyeah_
Slander? Well, I do not support mud slinging campaigns and what-have-you but Gray Davis is the one who has compared opponents to Leona Helmsley and brought up trivial nonsense like the fact Arnold's father was a Nazi. You probably know more than me, so have Davis' opponents used personal attacks?

I don't see this CA being &quot;far from liberal&quot;. The governorship always doesn't reflect the general political thought. Look at New York, a very liberal state, elected George Pataki. Do you think any state is, generally, liberal minded?
Arnold's father was a Nazi?...no way!:evil:

::insert swastika emoticon:::lol:
j/k

PhinPhan1227

09-02-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Miamian
Funny how I seem to remember that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and it didnÂ´t take too long to p!$$ it away. Now, we donÂ´t believe that everyone getting those refunds had anything to do with it?

Actually, nobody got a refund...they got an advance on the next years income tax. Or don't you remember adding that $300.00 back in to your 1040? The budget surpluss of the Clinton years was an illusion, because it was based on an economy that was an illusion. The dot.com "boom", existed for the most part only on paper, but the spending for that "boom" was real enough. So it's hardly surprising that when that "boom" came back to reality, the bill on that spending would come due, and it came due during the last year of Clintons term. Couple that with 9/11 and blaming Bush for the current economy makes about as much sense as blaming FDR for the Hollocaust.

Miamian

09-02-2003, 10:19 PM

In that case, all income is an advance for next year since it's all reported. Why single out the refund?

PhinPhan1227

09-03-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Miamian
In that case, all income is an advance for next year since it's all reported. Why single out the refund?

Because it sounded good at the time. All income isn't an advance however, since I assume that your boss doesn't pay you ahead of time.

Miamian

09-03-2003, 10:23 PM

What I mean is that we included the refund as part of our income for taxes for the following year. But, all that does is potentially (key word here) raise the bracket. What you're suggesting is that the government got back in taxes as much as it doled out in the refund, which would not be true.

PhinPhan1227

09-04-2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Miamian
What I mean is that we included the refund as part of our income for taxes for the following year. But, all that does is potentially (key word here) raise the bracket. What you're suggesting is that the government got back in taxes as much as it doled out in the refund, which would not be true.

The government sent you a check for $300 in July...it then had you deduct that amount in the following March. That's an advance. If you want to complain about something, how about complaining about the fact that many of the people who GOT that $300 don't PAY taxes!! If you want to look at lost revinue, look at THAT. But when you do, be sure to look at exactly who forced that part of the refund. (Hint...in wasn't GW).

P4E

09-04-2003, 12:52 PM

Man, Barbarian... I'm sure glad we agree on the Dolphins the way we do, cuz we sure don't agree on Gray Davis. You can have him. I'd take Uebberoth over any of them.

Mr.Murder

09-04-2003, 02:22 PM

Yes it was not Bush's fault, the economy is cyclical... so instead of riding it out with wiser spending we increase spending and reduce taxes. Then again Bush was a business failure every step of the way why should we expect him to be different now? The man who promised accountability from the enron state has done nothing to follow up his promise, wtg Bush league. The ENRON head Ken Lay lived in COlorado for a while rather comfortably after closing his company down that thrived off the deregulation that people such as Pete Wilson made possible. How ironic, Neil Bush, W's bro was in a Colorado savings and loans scandal that was in the hundred of millions (before his father then President pardoned him)...
A few hundred bucks to the lowest brackets, the highest brackets got back much more in dollar amounts. Fairness is a dollar for dollar across the board refund which did not happen.

Worker rights were struck down in the Reagan era, when he was puppet to papa Bush.How many years did it take the jobs to move off once unions were disenfranchised for political and economic leverage?

Cali recall is also jerrymandered once again, the exact same way Texas electoral votes are being redone to ensure further control of the highest office in nation as part of the new world order's one party system... only 16 of the original polling places will be open? So voters from areas not in those 16 will undoubtedly have their votes lost or moved for recounting and a new dade county scandal begins.

Davis is not all that, but he was elected... if the precedent for scrutiny becomes a deficit get Bush out of office and hold an election now, then again that would help since Dems. are still infighting as much as possible and the redneck majority of the 'bring em' on' circuit have not even realised such...

PhinPhan1227

09-04-2003, 03:17 PM

I love when people try and link Enron to Bush when Clinton not only held more responsability for that fiasco, he was also more fiscally linked. Heck lets talk Global Crossing while we're at it. Oh, and maybe you could explain how the GOP is to blame for a piece of work like Mrs Oliphaunt?

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Yes it was not Bush's fault, the economy is cyclical... so instead of riding it out with wiser spending we increase spending and reduce taxes. Then again Bush was a business failure every step of the way why should we expect him to be different now? The man who promised accountability from the enron state has done nothing to follow up his promise, wtg Bush league. The ENRON head Ken Lay lived in COlorado for a while rather comfortably after closing his company down that thrived off the deregulation that people such as Pete Wilson made possible. How ironic, Neil Bush, W's bro was in a Colorado savings and loans scandal that was in the hundred of millions (before his father then President pardoned him)...
A few hundred bucks to the lowest brackets, the highest brackets got back much more in dollar amounts. Fairness is a dollar for dollar across the board refund which did not happen.

Worker rights were struck down in the Reagan era, when he was puppet to papa Bush.How many years did it take the jobs to move off once unions were disenfranchised for political and economic leverage?

Cali recall is also jerrymandered once again, the exact same way Texas electoral votes are being redone to ensure further control of the highest nation as part of the new world order's one party system... on 16 of the original polling places will be open? So voters from areas not in those 16 will undoubtedly have their votes lost or moved for recounting and a new dade county scandal begins.

Davis is not all that, but he was elected... if the precedent for scrutiny becomes a deficit get Bush out of office and hold an election now, then again that would help since Dems. are still infighting as much as possible and the redneck majority of the 'bring em' on' circuit have not even realised such...

Miamian

09-04-2003, 08:36 PM

Deduct from our taxes or add to our income? It's all part of gross income in the end which can have an effect on tax bracketing, but in the end we paid much more for it than through revenue gained, by adding it to the deficit.

QUOTE]If you want to complain about something, how about complaining about the fact that many of the people who GOT that $300 don't PAY taxes[/QUOTE] I assume that you're talking about low/moderate income. Do you have figures on how much that part of it contributed to the deficit?[

Barbarian

09-05-2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Phan4Ever
Man, Barbarian... I'm sure glad we agree on the Dolphins the way we do, cuz we sure don't agree on Gray Davis. You can have him. I'd take Uebberoth over any of them.

If the GOP put anybody up against him that wasn't even worse in a general election then I'd vote for him, but like I said, Davis is the lesser of evils, and I think this recall sets a real bad standard.

Sadly, It's the overthrow of the tyrany of the majority. Now all we will see is a string of recalls one after the other and untill California law gets changed it's gonna end up costing, not just hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions.

Thats alot of money because the GOP couldent wait for 3 years to do this the right way. :(

Mr.Murder

09-05-2003, 10:19 PM

Correct....Right is seldom right these days. The name is a disclaimer, another fair and balanced spin. if you opinons are wrong, claim them for the 'right' side.

As for ENRON, the company was in Texas while W was the Governor, and you mean to tell me he was completely ignorant of the company presence and lobby money? Deregulation was a myth yes?

Have never seen proof that Clinton was tied to Enron more than Bush , and the point was not about a leader whose term limit was fulfilled. It was about a leader whose poor decisions have left us indebted to ourselves and the IMF and this kiss assed two face of a sorry excuse for a President is now begging for UN help after bragging about the person unafraid to make tough decisions and propose peace? Ohhhhhhhhh proposing peace is sending our people into harm's way and then asking for help that initially we did not listen to...

PS 1227- how many soldiers did we lose on the last holiday despite not being in offically declared War so as obligation to those disabled or survivor dependants with maximum care would be to recieve less compensation??? Getting leg shot off now is not a diabled vet status as well ... definitely Clinton's fault.
Tell me how that is Clinton's fault now.

The W in George W. Bush... spells AWOL - his middle name...

WharfRat

09-06-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder

Bush is a suckface and so are you 1227.

Mr Murder... everyone has the right to their opinions and political beliefs. Simply because you do not agree with 1227's opinion, does not give you the right to insult him.
TOS applies in here also.. no personal attacks.

Mr.Murder

09-06-2003, 10:42 PM

Will edit that reply then boss...

PhinPhan1227

09-08-2003, 08:55 AM

Are you actually naive enough to think that a Governor is responsible for the business practices of the companies within his state? He's a governor, he isn't God for goodness sakes. As for Clinton, he and the DNC recieved not only more money, but also gave Enron more aid. Go check those pesky facts.

Originally posted by Mr.Murder

As for ENRON, the company was in Texas while W was the Governor, and you mean to tell me he was completely ignorant of the comapny presence and lobby money? Deregulation was a myth yes?

Have never seen proof that Clinton was tied to Enron more than Bush equally so froma dollar standpoint perhaps for brief time, and the point was not about a leader whose term limit was fulfilled. It was about a leader whose poor decisions have left us indebted to ourselves and the IMF and this kiss assed two face of a sorry excuse for a President is now begging for UN help after bragging about the person unafraid to make tough decisions and propose peace? Ohhhhhhhhh proposing peace is sending our people into harm's way and then asking for help that initially we did not listen to...

PS 1227- how many soldiers did we lose on the last holiday despite not being in offically declared War so as obligation to those disabled or survivor dependants with maximum care would be to recieve less compensation??? Getting leg shot off now is not a diabled vet status as well ... definitely Clinton's fault.
Tell me how that is Clinton's fault now.

The W in George W. Bush... spells AWOL - his middle name...

Barbarian

09-09-2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Are you actually naive enough to think that a Governor is responsible for the business practices of the companies within his state? He's a governor, he isn't God for goodness sakes.

Exactly the reason we shouldent be recalling Davis.

PhinPhan1227

09-09-2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Barbarian

Exactly the reason we shouldent be recalling Davis.

Maybe not...but it's up to the voters to decide. If the masses were ignorant enough to elect him, it's their right within the states charter to remove him. Whole thing sounds like a lose/lose scenario.

Barbarian

09-09-2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Whole thing sounds like a lose/lose scenario.

Sadly, truer words were never spoken.

Oh well, hopefully Governer Bustamante (hell, I may not be a fortune teller, but the writings on the wall on this one) will be able to get this state back in hand, or at least hold down the fort untill we elect a competant legislature.

DeDolfan

09-11-2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by DallasDolfan

So you are saying that the economy is totally Bush's fault, when the downturn began in the late '90's under your hero Slick Willie. And the economy is our #1 issue, not Iraq. You lose all credibilty when you blame all of our country's problems on the current President. Now is he perfect, absolutely not, but he is better than the lily livered, hustler (and his side kick, AG), that came before him. Our problems lie in Congress, and the fat a$$e$ who sit there, both Rep and Dem.

If the economy is the #1 problem, well, wasn't it better under slick willie?? The biggest difference between the 2 is that Clinton lied, yes, about things that weren't really any body elses's business to begin with. And with that, I'll leave it RIGHT there !!

PhinPhan1227

09-12-2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by DeDolfan

If the economy is the #1 problem, well, wasn't it better under slick willie?? The biggest difference between the 2 is that Clinton lied, yes, about things that weren't really any body elses's business to begin with. And with that, I'll leave it RIGHT there !!

It still remains to be seen whether GW lied, or relayed bad information. Clinton however lied under oath. One other thing...if Clinton was getting his hummers outside the oval office, than no, it wouldn't be anybody's business. But he was getting them at work. As his employer, it's certainly my business when someone is behaving improperly at work.

Armored Saint

09-12-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by DeDolfan

If the economy is the #1 problem, well, wasn't it better under slick willie??

When you consider the surpluses that the Dems laud so much were comprised solely of Social Security monies and that stocks were overvalued because corporations were cooking the books, you would have to admit that the 1990s economic boom was a paper tiger. That house of cards was bound to fall at any time and boy, did it fall. :(

Mr.Murder

11-30-2003, 03:49 AM

So we replaced a house of cards with a house of toilet paper, because someday our taxpayers will have to pay for this **** bush is doing right now. Crap on paper= American dollar vs. most foreign currencies. CHina and Japan are the main countries buying into our debt since they reap benefits off interest. Oh yeah and China is the number one importer to Mexico, whose trade deficit is the only worse than ours at this time.
So instead of generating revenue via production we just make money available via rebate and cut back a ton of service and infrastructure upgrades and education spending , all of which help with job creation and revenue scale.
Free trade with any country that has negligible worker rights, child labor laws and no benefits for their jobs. Brought to you by the barely balanced media of the fox network.

DeDolfan

11-30-2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
So we replaced a house of cards with a house of toilet paper, because someday our taxpayers will have to pay for this **** bush is doing right now. Crap on paper= American dollar vs. most foreign currencies. CHina and Japan are the main countries buying into our debt since they reap benefits off interest. Oh yeah and China is the number one importer to Mexico, whose trade deficit is the only worse than ours at this time.
So instead of generating revenue via production we just make mobey available via rebate and cut back a ton of service and infrastructure upgrades and education spending , all of which help with job creation and revenue scale.
Free trade with any country that has negligible worker rights, child labor laws and no benefits for their jobs. Brought to you by the barely balanced media of the fox network.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another thing, b4 the war, Bush was saying how Iraq would be rebuilt from funds from oil reveune in Iraq. Then Cheney's cronies gets a no-bid contract to do the "rebuilding" and now with funds from the 8&+ billion Bush petitoned Congress for. Hmm, seems like the only thing getting rebuilt is somebodies' pocketbook. And now bush is exerting all his energy on the campaign trail instead of staying put and taking care of biz. tame that he scared to death and knows he's in deep **** !!!

DeDolfan

11-30-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Armored Saint

When you consider the surpluses that the Dems laud so much were comprised solely of Social Security monies and that stocks were overvalued because corporations were cooking the books, you would have to admit that the 1990s economic boom was a paper tiger. That house of cards was bound to fall at any time and boy, did it fall. :(

But whatever the reason, the biggest reason for surpluses is more ppl working, paying in more tax $$$, NOT from tax cuts at dumb timing. whether stocks were overvalued or not, if companies are making money, they have more ppl working and that's where the advantage is. As far as "it was bound to fall", so what? Economies never stay high forever and alsways rise and fall and now you're saying after the fact that you are "surprised" that it did? Life is just full of those "surprises", huh?? :lol:

PhinPhan1227

12-03-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by DeDolfan

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Another thing, b4 the war, Bush was saying how Iraq would be rebuilt from funds from oil reveune in Iraq. Then Cheney's cronies gets a no-bid contract to do the &quot;rebuilding&quot; and now with funds from the 8&amp;+ billion Bush petitoned Congress for. Hmm, seems like the only thing getting rebuilt is somebodies' pocketbook. And now bush is exerting all his energy on the campaign trail instead of staying put and taking care of biz. tame that he scared to death and knows he's in deep **** !!!

Once again, if Bush/Cheney are doing so much to enrich Halliburton, how do you explain the fact that Halliburtons stock is sitting at half the value it had when they took office?

DeDolfan

12-03-2003, 12:26 PM

because it ain't over yet. They haven't been able to do much with all the insurgency going on.

Mr.Murder

12-03-2003, 11:30 PM

Because so many newbies have heard about halliburton that when a certain number of loss limit levels get reached they clean house and isnider trade to make back their own money. Look how close CHeney's stock options go with it...
You act like business is honest, check back in when you realize reality...

DeDolfan

12-04-2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Because so many newbies have heard about hal;liburton that when a certain number of loss limit levels get reached they clean house and isnider trade to make back their own money. Look how close CHeney's stock options go with it...
You act like business is honest, check back in when you realize reality...

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

PhinPhan1227

12-04-2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Because so many newbies have heard about hal;liburton that when a certain number of loss limit levels get reached they clean house and isnider trade to make back their own money. Look how close CHeney's stock options go with it...
You act like business is honest, check back in when you realize reality...

It's all there on the ledger sheets for anyone to see. Heck, if Cheney was looking to make the most money he could have just sold short when he took office. He would have made a bundle. Now for him to see any monetary benefit to being VP he's going to have to get Halliburtons stock back up more than 100%. With the salary and other incomes he divested himself from to take office, he would have made more money by turning the job down.

Mr.Murder

12-04-2003, 10:46 PM

Really? And forcing halliburton to bid competitively would have done this huh 1227? Cheney got the options for free, he could sell the stuff at 5% and make money off the deal. You act like he invested to get these shares, they were part of his portfolio for being the head of the company.
Another lame excuse why he is not conflicting his financial interest with national war money? C'mon 1227 you are up to it, you have not dissappointed yourself in this regard yet. How about Bush striking from record money he sent Afghan business interests until a pipeline deal from Turkmanistan/Azbekistan fell through? Why would Bush strike this information off record if there was no problem with money or those who recieved it?
Those who have nothing to hide would not mind transparency in such matters.
Just draft the bill in secret, put it through with a vote line before people see who had input on it, and use scare tactics of National security in the meantime. Railroad stratagey for robber barrons continues.
By the way, nice steel tariff cutdown, now your fruitpicking job is safe 1227. Manufactured goods or low pay scale jobs, Bush's new south has gone from the days of picking cotton to picking fruit. Love to hear about progress.

PhinPhan1227

12-05-2003, 02:02 PM

Wow...talk about shooting your self in the foot. You're actually going to attack GW for pulling those tariffs when he was the one who instituted them in the first place? I guess we've seen your level of objectivity fully demonstrated.

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Really? And forcing halliburton to bid comepetitively would have done this huh 1227? Cheney got the options for free, he could sell the stuff at 5% and make money off the deal. You act like he invested to get these shares, they were part of his portfolio for being the head of the company.
Another lame excuse why he is not conflicting his financial interest with national war money? C'mon 1227 you are up to it, you have not dissappointed yourself in this regard yet. How about Bush striking from record money he sent Afghan business interests until a pipeline deal from Turkmanistan/Azbekistan fell through? Why would Bush strike this information off record if there was no problem with money or those who recieved it?
Those who have nothing to hide would not mind transparency in such matters.
Just draft the bill in secret, put it through with a vote line before people see who had input on it, and use scare tactics of National security in the meantime. Railroad stratagey for robber barrons continues.
By the way, nice steel tariff cutdown, now your fruitpicking job is safe 1227. Manufactured goods or low pay scale jobs, Bush's new south has gone from the days of picking cotton to picking fruit. Love to hear about progress.

Mr.Murder

12-05-2003, 05:42 PM

Actually that one fell in shrub's lap. Foreign steel has both bases covered, Europe and Japan have upgraded technology to make quality market offers competetively priced.
Smaller echelon companies have cheaper labor pools to compete.
Both ends of the market are then challenged. Tech upgrades force higher pricing and production costs intiially. The remaining time for the three years would definitely help but of course getting the chain pulled on a promise is par for the bush league's course. See also no child left legislation.
Once again 1227 acts like Bush alone was responsible for this, the legislators of many steel producers helped get this tariff done. Shrubya's best policy to insure employment in the mainland 48 States is canned a full year and a half ahead of scheudle, no surprise at all. Guess the FACT that it was in effect s BROKEN PROMISE and therefore par for the course escapes 1227's notice as well. Remember his promise for accountability for the ENRON schemers from his same state who are buddy-buddy with neil's Colorado contacts? Nice of you to forget and overlook such. Convenient and expected.
Let's take away steel tariffs, whose subcontracts and labor/service providers have a carry over affect. Let's make sure we avoid a tariff (heavens forbid) on orange industry. Steel has transport industry, subcontracts for labor and skill work carry overs. Their jobs are benefit laden as well for workers.
Orange industry- tree, fruit, picker...gee lots of diversity there. If they tariff our oranges so what let them pay more. The cieling on the industry is already maxed out. Steel has more upside possiblity especially with infrastructure upgrades so necessary now.
Far as that goes, halliburton is using dollars for open ended bids, yet how much US Steel goes to the same bids? 1227 wear that heart on a sleeve fo us more please.

Mr.Murder

12-20-2003, 06:33 PM

I love when people try and link Enron to Bush when Clinton not only held more responsability for that fiasco, he was also more fiscally linked. Heck lets talk Global Crossing while we're at it. Oh, and maybe you could explain how the GOP is to blame for a piece of work like Mrs Oliphaunt? (originally posted by 1227)

FACT:
Top Presidential Recipients
of Enron Contributions, 1989-2001*

Name Total
George W. Bush (R)
$113,800

Bob Dole (R)
$95,650

Al Gore (D)
$13,750

George H. W. Bush (R)*
$13,000

Bill Clinton (D)
$11,000 NOTE: Totals do not include the 1988 election cycle, when George H.W. Bush first ran for president.

*Based on FEC data downloaded 11/1/01.
More Faux News please! Stop spouting their swill propaganda and look into public records!

Interesting not to finheaven's most loyal fans:

Enron Contributions
to the Bush-Cheney 2000 Recount Fund***

Donor
Organization
Amount
Date

Linda Lay
Enron Corp
$5,000
11/16/2000

Kenneth Lay
Enron Corp
$5,000
11/16/2000

Hal C Elrod
Enron Corp
$500
11/17/2000

***Source Bush-Cheney 2000 Recount Committee.

Wow! Ken Lay is on Cheney's energy task force no wonder the VP tried to have its meeting notes , funding, and other public info stricken from record.:fire:

Mr.Murder

12-20-2003, 08:12 PM

Furthermore...
Political Giving in Texas

Enron has been a prolific financial supporter of George W. Bushâ€™s political career, beginning first with Bushâ€™s successful bid for Texas governor in 1994. Texans for Public Justice, an Austin-based non-profit research group, found in a January 2000 study that Enron was the biggest corporate supporter of Bushâ€™s 1994 and 1998 gubernatorial campaigns in Texas, with its employees contributing more than $312,000 during the two races. Of that total, former Enron chief Kenneth Lay contributed $100,000, making him one of the most generous individual contributors to Bush on the state level. Click here for TPJ's searchable database of contributors to Bush's state campaigns.

AND IT GETS BETTER:

Four years later, Enron gave at least $500,000 to the San Diego host committee, according to the Republican National Committee. In 2000, Enron donated $250,000 to the Philadelphia convention committee. However, none of the totals include the virtually undisclosed amounts of money Enron spent on parties and receptions at the conventions. For example, Enron in 2000 helped to throw a lavish luncheon in honor of then-vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney. And while the company didnâ€™t contribute directly to any of the last three Democratic National Conventions, Enron did throw parties for some of its closest friends there...

AND STILL MORE GRAFT...Corporate Jets

On top of its political contributions, Enron also made its company jet readily available to the Bush-Cheney campaign during the 1999-2000 election cycle at a greatly reduced price. An analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows that Bush-Cheney paid Enron roughly $60,000 for use of its jet during the campaign. Federal rules permit such use, as long as the campaigns reimburse the company for the cost of a first-class plane ticketâ€”a major bargain, considering corporate jets cost at least $1,000 per flight hour, not including other charges. The Center analyzed Bush's corporate jet use in the Winter 2000 issue of Capital Eye.

Contributions to Attorney General John Ashcroft

Attorney General John Ashcroft, who recused himself from the Justice Departmentâ€™s criminal probe of fallen energy giant Enron, raised a total of $57,499 from the company for his failed 2000 Senate campaign. Nearly half of that total -- $25,000 â€“ was given by former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay to Ashcroftâ€™s joint fund fundraising committee in the form of soft money. The Ashcroft Victory Committee also raised another $25,000 in soft money directly from Enron Corp., bringing that committeeâ€™s total take from Enron to $50,000. Ashcroft raised a total of $2,500 from Enron employees in his campaign account during the 1999-2000 election cycle. The money arrived from five Enron employees on the same day â€“ June 1, 1999 â€“ and in identical amounts of $500. The Enron PAC contributed $4,999 to Ashcroftâ€™s campaign committee in 1999-2000.

All that accountability Bush talked about was misstated, he meant he was going to take care of ACCOUNT ABILITY first. ENRON's account ability of course.
This information is fair, but not balanced. The weight of the payoff has tipped the scales.

DolFan31

12-20-2003, 09:58 PM

Mr Murder that is the kind of stuff we liberals have been talking about all along. Spoken and true like a true liberal, go Murder!

Mr.Murder

12-21-2003, 12:04 AM

I vote across party lines, always have. Am leaning towards all Demos of late but many repubs I know on local/civic level are good people and recieve my vote. It will take those people working their way up with support to change this morass of greed in the Republican party. I back McCain as well he has more integrity in these matters and when the pendulum swings his moderate leasership will prevent Dems from going overboard...
Address lies with truth. Simple enough way to end the hype and make things real again.

PhinPhan1227

12-22-2003, 09:44 AM

Bottom line on Enron is that Clinton did more to support their bad practices than Bush. Further, lets talk about Howard Dean and the fact that while he's attacking GW for tax cuts to large corporations, his state is doing the exact same thing...and Enron was a big recipient of that largesse.

DeDolfan

12-22-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by DolFan31
Mr Murder that is the kind of stuff we liberals have been talking about all along. Spoken and true like a true liberal, go Murder!

31, right! Alot of times you know certain things but may not have the "proof" at hand, so to speak, but usually we can get it given the time and effort. Mr. Murder has apparently done that for us.

Mr.Murder

12-24-2003, 06:53 AM

1227 Bush deregulated power for Texas based firms, when they put the clamps on Cali and Gray Davis asked for price cieling Bush said 'no go 'and let his brother neil, former Enron head Ken Lay (Cheney's energy task force man whose discolsure CHeney has been ordered by courts twice to disclose and STILL breaks the law and refuses to do) and the former JUNK BOND KING and CONVICTED securites fraud man Mike Milken meet/lobby/support Ahnold's recall effort.
Face it they are robber barons across the board per issue and these are matters of public record and YOU CAN NOT FACE THE TRUTH ON THESE MATTERS.
The best you can come up with is the same absurd lie you were proven wrong on your own man bush/Cheney's financial disclosures show Bush profited the most from ENRON and still you lie with him to me and other about this.

PhinPhan1227

12-24-2003, 09:37 AM

Sorry Spanky, Californias problems were Californias fault. CALIFORNIA deregulated energy in CALIFORNIA. Bush had NOTHING to do with that!! Californias energy problems stemmed from the fact that they refused to build ANY new generation systems, and THEN turned around and only deregulated HALF of their energy industry. A fool and their money are soon parted, and California proved to be HUGE fools. Overcharging them for those mistakes may have been unethical, but it was hardly illegal. As for Enron...I assume that you're a Howard Dean supporter. Maybe you should look up Vermonts tax shelter, and the amount of money Enron stashed there...but then you'd also have to look at the fact that during the time that Enron was building it's fraudulent business model, Clinton was in office, not GW. And the Governor of Texas has NOTHING to do with Federal Trade regulations. It wasn't GW's job to police Enron's business practices...that ball was dropped on someone elses watch.

Mr.Murder

12-24-2003, 04:17 PM

You are wrong, ENRON has a trail of letter from W to Lay on public record while W was the Gov. of Texas... and Pete Wilson deregulated energy and left Gray Davis to come in a take blame for.
Bush was the number one recipient of ENRON donations, that is a fact and you have yet to prove otherwise. The birds have come home to roost.

Enron's collapse into bankruptcy exposed not only its smoke and mirrors accounting methods, but also the full extent of Enron's influence in the federal government.

Over 50 high-level Bush administration officials have had meaningful ties to the now defunct energy company. For example, the Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White worked at Enron for nearly two decades, and he served as vice chairman of Enron Energy Services. The President's top economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsey and Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick served on Enron's advisory board. According to financial disclosure forms, at least 40 administration officials owned Enron stock. These officials include senior officials at the White House, the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, and State, the U.S. Trade Representative's office and EPA. The President reportedly refers to Enron CEO Ken Lay by the affectionate nickname "Kenny Boy

Enron Campaign Contributions to Bush, DeLay and GOP
So how exactly did Ken Lay and Enron have so much influence on George W. Bush, his White House, and congressional Republicans? The answer is simple: money.

Enron Corporation is President Bush's number-one career patron, having given him more money throughout his political career than any other contributor. Enron Corporation PAC, and Enron executives, employees and their family members contributed a total of $736,800 to President Bush from 1993 to 2001. Enron also contributed $250,000 to the Republican National Convention for its 2000 convention.

Kenneth and Linda Lay gave $276,500 to George W. Bush from 1993 to 2000, including $100,000 to the President's inaugural fund, $10,000 to his election recount fund and $40,000 to his 1999 State Victory Fund Committee.

But it was not just the Bush campaign that raked in Enron contributions. From 1989-2001, Enron Corporation PAC, and Enron executives, employees and their family members gave a total of $5,951,570 in hard and soft money to federal candidates and parties. Of this amount, 74% ($4,404,162) went to Republicans and 26% ($1,547,408) to Democrats.

More specifically, one of the top House Republican leaders has been a big beneficiary of Enron contributions and is deeply tied to Enron.Not only has Tom DeLay raised a lot of money from Enron, but his top staff have raked in Enron consulting fees. Ed Buckham, Karl Gallant and John Hoy were awarded a $750,000 contract by Americans for Affordable Electricity, an Enron-funded coalition, after DeLay recommended to Enron that they hire the team. (Roll Call, 2/25/02) His connections to Enron are so strong that "some call DeLay the 'congressman from Enron,'." (The National Journal June 3, 2000om DeLay and his political network have collected more than $200,000 from Enron and its executives over the last seven years.

From 1989-2000, Majority Whip Tom DeLay has raked in more than $28,000 from Enron's PAC and employees for his congressional campaign. His PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) got $50,000 in soft money from Enron in 2001. Enron gave $10,000 in soft money to ARMPAC in 2000, and between 1995-2000 Enron and its employees gave $47,250 in hard money. Kenneth Lay gave $50,000 to Republican Majority Issues Committee in 2000 - another one of DeLay's fundraising operations. (Roll Call, 2/25/02)

Â» May 22, 1997: Enron, EX-IM, and a Secretive Gov. Bush
In May 1997 Enron executives wrote and asked Gov. Bush to urge the Texas Congressional delegation to support authorization and appropriation for the Export-Import Bank. Gov. Bush did not provide a written response to Enron, however Shirley Green, former Bush correspondence director, composed a hand-written note describing the communication between the governor and Ken Lay regarding Ex-Im. She notes that, "...the Gov is no fan of Ex-Im but didn't want to put it on paper." This is a perfect example of both the close relationship between Enron and Bush as well as the secretive nature of the Bush Adminstration.

Â» December 21, 1994: Letter from Ken Lay to Gov.-Elect Bush
Ken Lay asks Governor-elect George Bush to consider Pat Wood for the post at the Public Utility Commission. Lay also addresses tort reform.

Â» June 5, 1997: Letter from Ken Lay to Governor Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. Bush complimenting him on his work towards energy deregulation.

Â» May 22, 1997: Enron, EX-IM, and a Secretive Gov. Bush
In May 1997 Enron executives wrote and asked Gov. Bush to urge the Texas Congressional delegation to support authorization and appropriation for the Export-Import Bank. Gov. Bush did not provide a written response to Enron, however Shirley Green, former Bush correspondence director, composed a hand-written note describing the communication between the governor and Ken Lay regarding Ex-Im. She notes that, "...the Gov is no fan of Ex-Im but didn't want to put it on paper." This is a perfect example of both the close relationship between Enron and Bush as well as the secretive nature of the Bush Adminstration.

Â» December 21, 1994: Letter from Ken Lay to Gov.-Elect Bush
Ken Lay asks Governor-elect George Bush to consider Pat Wood for the post at the Public Utility Commission. Lay also addresses tort reform.

Â» June 5, 1997: Letter from Ken Lay to Governor Bush
Ken Lay writes to Gov. Bush complimenting him on his work towards energy deregulation.

Â» April 1997: Ken Lay to Gov. Bush
Ken Lay asks Gov. Bush to meet with the visiting ambassador from Uzbekistan where Enron had aspirations of oil and gas ventures.

Â» April 1997: Personal Note from Bush to Lay

Â» April 1997: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Lay

Â» April 199&; Lay to Bush
Ken Lay singles out Texas PUC commissioner, Pat Wood, for praise in this letter to Gov. Bush. Lay later hand picked Wood to head FERC while on the Bush transition team in 2000. Wood consistently backed Enron in Texas regulatory matters.
Â» Nov. 1998: Personal note from Ken Lay to Gov. Bush

Â» Dec. 1998: Lay to Gov. Bush
Lay did not always get his way with Gov. Bush. In this letter Lay asks that the Gov. speak at an upcoming conference encouraging American investment in Africa's private sector. Across the top Bush scrawled "No."

Â» Jan. 1999: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Ken Lay

Â» April 1999: Personal note from Gov. Bush to Ken Lay

Â» Ken Lay, George H. Bush & Marco Polo
In 1999 then Texas Governor George H. W. Bush awarded Enron CEO Kenneth Lay the Marco Polo Award. The award recognized Lay for playing "an instrumental role in China's economic development." Henry Kissinger shared the podium with Bush and Lay at the award ceremony. Click on the headline above to view the original documents.

EACH OF THESE IS LISTED AT THE DAILY ENRON.

PhinPhan1227

12-29-2003, 09:12 AM

Nifty...but you haven't answered my question...if you're voting for the Democrat front runner, how do you feel about the fact that he passed laws in Vermont that gave Enron and other like companies massive tax cuts?

Mr.Murder

12-29-2003, 05:59 PM

Bush's faults outweigh Dean's in this manner, more money, more contact, more legislation... Dean at least is a doctor and can perhaps make health care better instead of turning it into private money givaways to the insurance lobby.
Bush took money from these crooks from day one their rise to power coincides with his...
Say 1227 did you get a chance to club gas and shoot highschool and college kids for the WTTA demonstartions in FLorida? I hear it was a big hit with residents of the state...

Mr.Murder

12-29-2003, 06:01 PM

The thread was about Bush, not Dean, or even CLinton, stand your ground on merit of issue and stop trying to be distractive, the faux network argument line will not stand to scrutiny... just end it with some quote like "well all politicians are corrupt..." to lesson the impact of a lost argument... I know you got in ya to do so !!! Do not diassappoint us, captain cliche bring me another comeback please!
The fact of the matter is that your best replies do not even defend Bush, they defame others... nothing fights like a cornered dog. Resume!

PhinPhan1227

12-30-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Bush's faults outweigh Dean's in this manner, more money, more contact, more legislation... Dean at least is a doctor and can perhaps make health care better instead of turning it into private money givaways to the insurance lobby.
Bush took money from these crooks from day one their rise to power coincides with his...
Say 1227 did you get a chance to club gas and shoot highschool and college kids for the WTTA demonstartions in FLorida? I hear it was a big hit with residents of the state...

How so? Bush gave tax cuts to major corporations as President, Dean did so as Governor. What makes you think he'd do differently as President? What's worse, he attacked GW for doing EXACTLY what he did. That's hypocracy. And what in the WORLD does being a doctor have to do with knowing how to PAY for healthcare? How many fiscally responsible doctors do YOU know?

PhinPhan1227

12-30-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
The thread was about Bush, not Dean, or even CLinton, stand your ground on merit of issue and stop trying to be distractive, the faux network argument line will not stand to scrutiny... just end it with some quote like &quot;well all politicians are corrupt...&quot; to lesson the impact of a lost argument... I know you got in ya to do so !!! Do not diassappoint us, captain cliche bring me another comeback please!
The fact of the matter is that your best replies do not even defend Bush, they defame others... nothing fights like a cornered dog. Resume!

Any discussion of Bush as a President will ALWAYS involve comparisons with those who preceded, and those who seek to replace, him. How can you rate a Presidents performance otherwise? As for Bush, once again, I disagree with many of his policies. But overall, I feel he's done quite a good job especially when you account for the fact that he took office with a declining economy that was coming off an artificial high, and he did so right before the worst attack on US soil since the 1700's. There hasn't been a President who faced these kind of circumstances since FDR. So yes, I disagree with his stance on several moral issues. But I strongly agree with his overall actions concerning the economy and foreign affairs. And since the other issues are immaterial without strong Fiscal and International security, I support him over the Dem candidates.

PhinPhan1227

12-30-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder

Say 1227 did you get a chance to club gas and shoot highschool and college kids for the WTTA demonstartions in FLorida? I hear it was a big hit with residents of the state...

As a resident of South Florida, I got to see a LOT of coverage of the WTTA. And the "kids" I saw clubbed were doing everything they could to provoke the cops. Bottom line about the WTTA...South Florida didn't have the property damage that the other WTA cities did...so good job Chief Timoney. Who, by the way, as a good Irish Catholic from the North East, is a big fan of labor unions. He's just not a big fan of a$$holes who are looking to cause trouble and damage other peoples property. Oh, and those individuals/groups who organized peaceful protests were not harassed or harmed in any way...I saw the footage.

Mr.Murder

12-30-2003, 11:31 PM

Peacfeul assembly is something that must be stopped, you are so right...

Mr.Murder

12-30-2003, 11:34 PM

Doctors are not models of fiscal responsibility, thanks for informing me such 1227, Dean may just follow Bush's model of bankrupt business models that had bail-outs as oil writeoffs... the country is being written off for a loss in terms of deficit.

Mr.Murder

12-30-2003, 11:37 PM

Nice reply to the ENRON facts as well, the proof is in the pudding, and the big ol' deficit recepie is working wonders... but instead this is CLinton's fault or a Dean comparison...it seems like Dean could not get away with such without a balance of power... Bush has support in every branch of gov't and the results are still garbage.

PhinPhan1227

12-31-2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Peacfeul assembly is something that must be stopped, you are so right...

Peacefull assembly is still protected. The Chief even marched WITH the AFL/CIO group. The people that show up with weapons, paint, gas masks, etc are not there for peaceful assembly. Your rights of assembly/speech do not trump my rights of safety/security. "Assembly", yes, "disruption" no. Or are you going to tell me that the riots which took place in other WTO meeting cities were spontanious, or police caused? Is that why the rioters showed up with their own tear gas, molotove cocktails, and other weapons? Were they part of their right to "peaceful assembly"?

PhinPhan1227

12-31-2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Doctors are not models of fiscal responsibility, thanks for informing me such 1227, Dean may just follow Bush's model of bankrupt business models that had bail-outs as oil writeoffs... the country is being written off for a loss in terms of deficit.

The fact that someone is a doctor does NOT make them any more qualified to find ways to pay for healthcare than someone who is NOT a medical doctor. Med school doesn't deal with financials. In point of fact, the emphasis is on diagnostics/treatment. Far from being trained in ways to pay for healthcare, they're trained in ways to spend for healthcare. Hardly compatible. And what's scary is that Dean somehow feels that there's no accounting for scale. He seems to think that because something worked in one of the smallest, least populated states in America, it will work for the country as a whole. Scares the heck out of me.

Mr.Murder

12-31-2003, 10:31 PM

Molotov cocktails in Miami? Surrrrrrreeee...

Mr.Murder

12-31-2003, 10:40 PM

I have said the same thing, his state is smaller, so the demographics and the tactical model for fiscal plans would be much tougher to apply to larger strategic regions. Still the fact that he achieved SOME success compared to the paltry Bush record aside from gov't appointed posts is what makes him a wise choice in comparison.
And, Dean is capable with vocal presentation...he can enumerate and annunciate policies with skill and tact. At least after Dean speaks people understand what was said and do not scoff his intelligence.
The last line of defense is all you have fallen on for each post 1227... "all politicians are corrupt/ their policies and vote record were the same...." those are great points to make. If such is the final merit issue you have to make the logical conclusion would be AT LEAST DEAN KNOWS HOW TO SPEAK COMMON ENGLISH AND COMPLETE COHERENT SENTENCES.
There, we have taken away the fluff and ideology/terminology disitinctions that border jungian post-marx phrasings which are the usual chimp logic lines of debate these republicowns use as a catch all conclusion.
I feel better knowing that neither party is different, it gives us all a clear and wise decision to vote for the one who presents facts in wise fashion. Bush has never done so.

PhinPhan1227

01-05-2004, 11:03 AM

Misrepresentation Murder? I never said, "all politicians are corrupt/ their policies and vote record were the same...". Most politicians DO "play the game", but there are certainly varying levels of ethics involved. What I find quite funny however is that you would prefer that the overriding requirement for our President is erudition. Abraham Lincoln was considered a backwoods redneck by the media of the day because of his country accent. Despite that fact, he was a decent President. Same thing with Truman. Country background, country accent, country diction...pretty good President. If all you're conserned with is effective public speaking, we can just elect James Earl Jones tomorrow. I guarrantee that everyone would tune in for the State of the Union. Personally, I prefer a President who has conviction, drive, and vision. Bush has plenty of flaws, but at least he has the first requirement of a good leader. He's willing to make A decision. Right or wrong, at least he'll make the call. Had you served in the military, you'd know that a leaders ability to make DECISIONS is MUCH more important than his ability to make SPEECHES. You're worried about style when you should be worried about substance. And Dean should have you VERY worried. He has presented his plan as a simple "scale up" from programs used in Vermont. He has yet to address the fact that Vermonts demographic is NOTHING like the rest of the country. I've spent time in Vermont. Good luck finding minorities, the elderly, urban sprawl, impoverished areas, international trade, or anything else that a nation has to deal with. At least Texas has all those elements. But I guess that none of that bothers you. You don't care that he's a raging hypocrite...just so long as he spews his hypocracy in an erudite fashion.

Mr.Murder

01-05-2004, 09:53 PM

Good Decision making is the issue here, Dean has made some on amoderate scale demographic. BUSH HAS MADE ZERO. You have simplified this to its basic elements. Making decisions is not the issue here, EVERYONE does that.
Quality over quantitiy. The only quantitative decision Bush has made is a deficit sprawl tax cut. So far his qualitative decisions have been a dud...

PhinPhan1227

01-06-2004, 09:29 AM

Really? The economy is on the upswing and every market indicator says that the upswing will continue. And there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Whatever your opinion of Bush, the end results seem to be going pretty well.

Mr.Murder

01-06-2004, 10:29 PM

We lost power in 6 states and Niagra's power facility had reports of loud booms nearby, no NORAD lightening was seen there as was the intital report. OH A BIG TREE DID IT. We are about to make 3 million plus work visas into citizens and no security oversights for such will occur as well.
There are no new jobs, less so, if that is a recovery to you perhaps you're a dysfunctional like Neil Bush (the dyslexic) whose mistakes, like Shubya's have strangely profited him...

JOBLESS RECOVERY IS A LIE, ANOTHER MISNOMER STATEMENT, OXYMORONS DO NOT PRDOUCE RESULTS> THE TOP BRACKET PROFITS OFF STOCKS THE BACKBONE OF THE COUNTRY BEARS THIS BURDEN FOR NET LOSS IN PAY SCALE AND JOB OPPORTUNITES.

PhinPhan1227

01-07-2004, 09:26 AM

If those trained to follow and rate the economy judge it to be a recovery, what qualifications do you have to dispute them?

Mr.Murder

01-07-2004, 05:56 PM

Employment levels, and total revenues taxable, more experts have said the economy is bad than good. Petroleum world .com even lists the FACT that wages have not increased with the market which is indictative of overvaluation and an eventual tarket market (America) is headed to major recession/depression.
Thanks anways for being wrong. This is America, you have the right to be wrong. It does not mean the whole nation should be endangered in fiscal terms by such views that are part of the Bush league.

PhinPhan1227

01-08-2004, 09:40 AM

Jobs are always the last indicator to turn upwards. They have to be since every other indicator is what makes those jobs possible. Right now, productivity levels are at record highs. That means that each individual is doing more work than he ever has in the past. That can't be maintained. Employers HAVE to bring on more people, and EVERY employers poll has produced a healthy jump in hiring for 2004.

Mr.Murder

01-09-2004, 08:09 PM

Ifs and Butts are candy and nuts in your book, the numbers right now are terrible and below Bush's own paltry projections. We would need 400,000 new jobs per to see a true recovery on the numbers Bush leaguers initially projected.
Exactly who says it is recovery qualified to do so? Even in the light of recent upswings the NET EFFECT is still in the negative... the 100,000 new job December turned out to be the 1,ooo new job December. Maybe the Bush league has another Dyslexic reading the numbers like Neil did at the Colorado savings and loan... one man's million is another's billions for bush leaguers. So a thousand being mis-stated net total of a hundred thousand is no surprise either.

Fact- the GDP is inflated for defense spending and despite moving jobs overseas these corporate entities are somehow allowed to use those numbers for outsourced jobs in OUR economic numbers. True voodoo economics.
The expenditures increase has less net effect than ever. The trickle down is downsized, and is just a down economics plan, the numbers don't lie, just a few people presenting them including 1227...

PhinPhan1227

01-10-2004, 09:35 AM

One set of numbers, or even two...but EVERY indicator(including jobs, albeit at a slower rate) is up. And one indicator which is clear is Productivity. Those who ARE employed are producing at a higher per capity rate than at any time since productivity has been measured. Individuals are actually working harder than when we didn't even have labor laws. That level of productivity can NOT be maintained. Employers have to add more jobs...and they've even said so in all the end of year polls. Think whatever you like...the economy is swinging upwards. If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears while chanting LALALALALA that's up to you. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't change the truth of the situation.

Mr.Murder

01-13-2004, 10:38 PM

Jobs are up, by 1,000 for December, and they pay less than other jobs. The wage level has increased by 2 cents, the lowest such move in over 40 years... one percent of the Bush league projections have been reached- FACT. And these projections were long overdue as well.
Take out inflated defense spending from the GDP (which would have been at 6% regardless) and the 2% gain that resulted the worst deficit EVER is a laugher.

So did you take that voluntary pay cut to show us the model of citizenship that you say unions threaten? Thought so.

PhinPhan1227

01-15-2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Mr.Murder
Jobs are up, by 1,000 for December, and they pay less than other jobs. The wage level has increased by 2 cents, the lowest such move in over 40 years... one percent of the Bush league projections have been reached- FACT. And these projections were long overdue as well.
Take out inflated defense spending from the GDP (which would have been at 6% regardless) and the 2% gain that resulted the worst deficit EVER is a laugher.

So did you take that voluntary pay cut to show us the model of citizenship that you say unions threaten? Thought so.

This is why hard left wingers have no concept of how to make an economy work. You're suggesting I should take a pay cut because of ideology. I'm TELLING you that I am payed according to the value I bring to my company. Return On Investment. You think people should be paid according to some theoretical model. I KNOW that people are and should be paid according to the value they bring to their company, and the market in which they work. That's reality. It's been reality since the creation of the market economy. Heck man, even the guy that WORKS on the It's a Small World ride in The Magic Kingdom knows this, so what's your excuse?

Mr.Murder

01-16-2004, 08:12 PM

So maKING OTHERS WORK BELOW THEIR VALUE IS ok? hMMM MAYBE IN LABOR CAMPS. GO SIGN FOR IT 1227! The fact is you dont want to work below value, but you want others to abide by said standard. Double standard doublespeak, must be a repugnantcon.

PhinPhan1227

01-17-2004, 11:13 PM

"Value" you moron is the most subjective term in the English language. "Value" changes by the person, the time, the circumstances, the market, EVERYTHING effects value. The Eastern workers value AT THAT TIME was less than what they were making. How unbelievably moronic do you have to be to fail to recognize basic economics? Are you 12 or just brainwashed?

Mr.Murder

01-21-2004, 12:34 AM

So you mean to say the airline workers were worth nothing. Thanks, this chat asks 1227's evaluation be put on the record.

PhinPhan1227

01-21-2004, 09:38 AM

No, I mean to say that your reading comprehention is worth nothing. SALARIES are a reflection of value. And VALUE is an entirely subjective term. Again, any 12 year old in an economics class knows this. A wagon wheel maker in 1897 had tremendous VALUE and so earned a good SALARY. That same wagon wheel maker in 1935 had virtually NO value, and so earned little or no SALARY. Seriously, are you challenged, or just stuborn? I need to know because I've been assuming a normal level of inteligence here and I owe you an apology if that was an erroneous assumption.

Mr.Murder

01-26-2004, 06:43 PM

So if a wagon wheel maker made say 5 dollars a month in the job position's heyday than taking 3 dollars a month to stay competetive would be smart strategy eh?
Say the Bush bandwagon is losing wheels and passengers, get that wheelmaker and fix that up! Free trade wagon wheelmakers are a dime a dozen in asian market I hear...
Lot of 12 year olds in economics, 2 years after I graudated they had 4.0 senior here who was old enough to be a sixth grader, I think I've found his website, the guy posts tons of scientific advancement pages on a blogsite... maybe he can assess the economic thread for me (should it be the same David Harris). As for wagon wheels being obsolete, Kerry says the F102 Bush flew in on the dummy seat trainer module was obsolete as well, a relevant segue... maybe that is why he ends his 6 year guard duty in 4 years and somehow still retians a dishonorable discharge despite missing his evaluations and not physically signing his disharge papers...

A bankrupt excuse for a president, in every sense of the word... Shrubya!

PhinPhan1227

01-27-2004, 09:44 AM

Lol...I've never really done drugs....but I'd appreciate it if someone who has could explain this last post of Murders to me.

Mr.Murder

01-27-2004, 10:20 PM

Just say 'NO' to 1897 wagon wheel makers 1227... great that you brought that topic up, jet airplanes have gone the way of the horse drawn wagon these days.
What were you smoking when you thought of that? Wagons wheel makers as comparison to jet airline construction.
Murder was on dope when he came up wqith a reply to that argument... NOT...

PhinPhan1227

01-28-2004, 01:06 AM

Darn...I have to apologize Murder...I once again forgot that you are incapable of recognizing allegory. I was doing my best to explain "value" to you, and the fact that it is a relative term. I was trying to keep it simple, but apparently it wasn't simple enough. I'll explain it to you in very simple, very basic terms. A persons PAY, and by extension, that persons VALUE as reflected by that PAY, is a RELATIVE and VARIABLE figure. Those individuals who worked for Eastern Airlines in South Florida, might as well have been wagon wheel makers once Eastern closed up shop. They had skills which were USELESS in that economy. And since the rest of the industry wasn't expanding, there was NO PLACE FOR THEM TO GO. They HAD been made obsolete by the fact of Eastern closing it's doors. THAT was their VALUE. THAT was what they were going to be PAID. That is a VERY simple fact of economics. And I can only hope that it WAS dope that has kept you from understanding this VERY simple concept. At least then you could come down off your buzz and possibly grasp the concept. If not, than I just have to assume rampant stupidity on your part, and there's no cure for that.

Mr.Murder

01-30-2004, 01:16 AM

Made obsolete, like the f-102? Oh, like the wagon wheel... thanks for making me more wise. This thread is becoming obsolete...

PhinPhan1227

01-30-2004, 10:37 AM

Seriously, are you 12? What's next, "I know you are, but what am I"?

Mr.Murder

01-30-2004, 02:42 PM

Not even 12 yet, in dog years... it's a dogged situation we have in America... so maybe i can live up to your standard in a few more year's time...

PhinPhan1227

01-30-2004, 06:09 PM

It's been a dogged situation here for quite a while...then again, it's been a dogged situation EVERYWHERE for EVER. Quick question...if GW invented to shift of American jobs to foreign soil...what was WalMart selling for 2 decades BEFORE GW took office?

Mr.Murder

02-01-2004, 06:58 AM

Does wal-mart sell white collar job workers? Bush sold them off.

As for Wal-Mars and the new Wal order, you can have it. College teach was one of the people who intially consulted Walton , shared conversations with him and ate with him, and helped revolutionize retail with the inventory autoscan registers that he helped intsall. The same scanners that Bush senior had seen the first time in his life when he walked into a store to buy things a year before Clinton took the office back for real people. He did not agree with all of the things being done but blueprinted Nafta well before it happened, said service jobs would be all that was left soon if the outsourcing was not limited to assure full market expansion of target for true trade value exchange.
Well look what happened. By the book as he said... someone got in who had no balls to stand up to business oversight and let an avalanche happen instead of controlled growth that would assure stable economies and trade expansion.
Bush the chimp, you don't ask chimps to sit at steering wheels. Any growth we do have will be a cancer now, with interest rates ready to spiral upward. Trade deficit was 7 to 1 and is getting worse per day. Jobs underpaid and benfits stripped/temped out. Stock market overvalued for our dollar purchase but an easy thing to buy up elsewhere. This is the bleakest picture we've ever had in modern terms.

PhinPhan1227

02-01-2004, 12:13 PM

Lol...a person who doesn't understand how salries are determined is going to give his assessment of our economy? I'd rather see a chimp at the steering wheel would be a safer bet than your assessment of our current state. At least the chimp has the right motor skills, while you've demonstrated nothing but an utter lack of the most basic economic facts. Since I'm an eternal optimist however, I'll give you a bit of information. Read the literature put out by the top economists for the last 3 decades. We've been moving towards a Service economy for years. Anyone with a grasp of history knows that ANY top economy eventually gravitates to a Service economy because Manufacturing requires cheap labor and always has. So somehow GW is also responsible for a process which has been ongoing for more than 30 years? Or did his Great Grandfather cause that as well?

Mr.Murder

02-02-2004, 01:00 AM

Cheap labor? Our manufacturing heyday was because of Unions expanding the purchase power of the middle class. Nice of you to ignore such facts, bankruptcy and small business foreclosures have hit all time highs.
Jobless recovery, or a worker's recession... oxymorons that describe this same situation.

PhinPhan1227

02-02-2004, 01:15 AM

Yes, cheap labor. Mass production was designed so that there were no skilled craftsmen required in the process. Each person only has to learn a single skill set to perform their function. Thus you can employ MUCH cheaper labor to get the same job done. And our manufacturing heyday was a result of this mass production coupled with abundant resources, and the massive destruction in Europe caused by two Wolrd Wars. Labor unions performed a great function in improving the quality of life for a LOT of American workers, but America's future does NOT lie in heavy manufacturing, and hasn't for decades. Other countries can and will do the same jobs for less money. The alternative is to reduce the standard of living for America and that isn't really an option. Eventually, ANY manufactured good will become comoditized, and as such will devolve to a "best price" product. Services however are able to retain their intrinsic value because services require a higher standard than products. Thus services retain a higher profit margin, and resist becoming comoditized. Again, study a little economic history. This is a natural progression that has been ongoing in America for decades.

Mr.Murder

02-03-2004, 06:07 PM

Service industry is a group that has to utilize products in some way most of the time. To ignore the goods that help enable service as part of our economy would be to disgregard large segments of the society.
To disregard segments of the society would pave the way for their eventual placesment to areas that match said values. See also work camps.
Jew value was matched with labor and conditions fitting to other's definition of their value ("value" can change). This economic master plan can be applied in other ways.
Culture is what makes the different items distinct for trade. Homogenous production sourcing/methods lead to stagnation of culture, this current economy model is bereft of cultural value reinforcement as it applies to economic trade models.

So if these jobs drop pay then service drops pay standards also as a result of the work base becoming less of a purchase agent? Of course not... service model pricing gives us a different standard for pricing and we return to a discrepancy of the system.
If this good/service formula always spirals upwards then technically there is no solution (the 'Bush is not to blame' decree) for this problem only policies to lessen or accelerate the pace which Bush is guilty of accelerating past our economy of scale model for the tax base necessary to run the government and keep standards of living high as well.

SLice it up any way ya want 1227, **** pie still stinks. get you a big ol' slice of it since you are the biggest fan of it.

PhinPhan1227

02-03-2004, 06:12 PM

Bottom line, moderately skilled labor such as that used by large manufacturing has been fleeing this country for 30 years. It's a natural progression. Cottage manufacturing is a different matter since it generally involves more skilled labor. It's called change Murder. But in order to recognize change, you'd have to have a clue as to what's going on first.

Mr.Murder

02-03-2004, 06:15 PM

Cottage manufacturing? Free trade limeys? We are important people to take those jobs up as part of bush's new worker import plan.
Explain again how this change is poitivie for us and helps us creat jobs for Americans (aside from sonic and McDonald's or Wal-Mart).